to think at last something has exposed this scandal

[Crumbledwalnuts]

massive amounts paid to charity executives

it's almost a scam

"but there has been a huge growth in charities in the last decade or so"

I didn't know that. What is the amount of that growth?

Um, yes charities are audited LazyJaney

I believe the Charity Commission has had to downsize due to lack of funding, this has meant less random investigations of charities and more reliance on audited accounts and good, clear explanations of their expenses in the Trustee reports.

In Scotland all charity accounts go through oscr and are audited and scrutinised. Even my guide units accounts have to be sumitted to oscr yearly.

Charities are not audited like companies, and the amounts that actually get to the supposed Recipients are sometimes ludicrously rather small given what the chiefs pay themselves - I agree it's a scandal waiting to break.

What absolute nonsense. I worked in the accounts department of a charity for 11 years and I can tell you that they were always being audited. Audited for gift aid, proper accounts audits and charity commission audits. I darnt put a foot wrong because i knew that we would be pulled up on it.

"any fool can make money if their staff work for nothing. Slavery and Charities have taught us this".. me

On the other hand - half of this article seems to be more about the amount if public money going into charities. This isn't some kind of altruistic giving by the government. It's part of the whole conservative policy to outsource govt obligations to private companies and the third sector. If you don't support that then complain about the govt not the charities who are picking up the slack!

What are you referring to when you say the Charity Commission has "regularly been found wanting" justafleshwound?

I have more issues with how much is spent on marketing.

Do you realise that some charities raise money specifically for marketing and they are not allowed to spend that money on anything else, its called restricted funds.
Also spending a eg £1 on marketing could raise £10 where as they may have only raised £5 with no marketing, so by spending £1 they are £4 better off.

TheAccidentalExhibitionist

The bigger the charity the higher their non donatable costs will be.

Yes, but as a proportion of their total income, their maintenance costs should fall because they can make use of economies of scale.

There are plenty of scandals waiting to pop out of the Charities closet. This is one. The "charity receives taxpayers' money, lobbies government for more taxpayers' money" merry-go-round is another. A third is the overtly political activity of charities, who aren't supposed to be political vehicles.
A fourth IMO is that some charities, particularly large ones are now dependent on taxpayers' money for their continued operation. Oxfam, for example, gets 1/4 of its income from the taxpayer via grants through central, local and supranational government.

badguider

On the other hand - half of this article seems to be more about the amount if public money going into charities. This isn't some kind of altruistic giving by the government. It's part of the whole conservative policy to outsource govt obligations to private companies and the third sector. If you don't support that then complain about the govt not the charities who are picking up the slack!

Not the case. Government funding to charities became huge under the Labour government. The co-alition's policy, IIRC, is to ensure that charities take over where government ends, not to fund those charities and treat them as another arm of the state.

I'm a trustee of a charity you would have heard of and we are fully audited, our accounts are available to anyone and all trustees are registered at Companies House. Our Chief Exec is an ex investment banker, our chairman ran a huge retail chain, our treasurer is also a finance director of a FTSE100 company and the rest of the committee were and are high career achievers. Only our chief exec is paid, and he earns less than a fifth of what he did previously. He does the job because he's committed to the cause.

There's no scam, and Third Sector should be able to pay the salaries it needs. Our particular charity provides a service, delivered by paid staff. Their salaries are "admin" costs but without them we wouldn't exist, so it's a red herring to think that "admin" means money that doesn't directly go to the end user. Often it's one and the same.

As for charities being reliant on state funding - if they are providing a service to the state then so what? I'm thinking particularly drug and alcohol charities, and housing charities - often reliant on local govt contracts in order to function and for that they counsel and house people that current state provision can't provide for. What's the problem ?

YABU

A quick search shows the commission has been found wanting wrt charity using this status as a tax avoidance schemes, being unable to remove this status

Wtf do you think your money pais for when you donate if it's not to pay experienced and skilled people to run the charities well....?

flatpack - "Government funding to charities became huge under the Labour government. The co-alition's policy, IIRC, is to ensure that charities take over where government ends, not to fund those charities and treat them as another arm of the state."

I didn't mean to imply that new labour didn't do this also, as I was just talking about the current situation not the history of it...

The current situation IS that the coalition is reducing the provision of direct state services so that the line where the government ends is moving and more responsibility for service provision is moving into the private and third sectors. This is definitely happening... in finding jobs for 'difficult to place' candidates and in housing for sure, also some drug and alcohol fields, and some social care fields...

A fourth IMO is that some charities, particularly large ones are now dependent on taxpayers' money for their continued operation
The charity i worked for provided a service the government should have been providing, The local council provided 1/3 of the funding for 3 years to set up the office, the other 2/3s were provided by mainly large corporations. We saved the government money!

Fourwillies

As for charities being reliant on state funding - if they are providing a service to the state then so what? I'm thinking particularly drug and alcohol charities, and housing charities - often reliant on local govt contracts in order to function and for that they counsel and house people that current state provision can't provide for. What's the problem ?

They shouldn't be providing a service to the state. That's the problem.

If there's a role the state should be fulfilling, then it should fulfil it. There needs to be a clearer distinction between the job that the local/regional/national government does, and the job that the charity does, and taxpayer's money going to charities to provide services blurs that distinction. It encourages the charity's focus away from the people they're trying to help and on to how to obtain their next chunk of money from the taxpayer.

Meant to say that charity was set up over 20 years ago, so nothing to do with the current government.

And I'm not saying that it's always a bad thing... but you can't support the govt putting out contracts which third sector organisations can compete for and win and then complain about the third sector getting those 'public funds'.
Better a charity than bloomin G4S again in my opinion!

I am sure that there is a lot of charities who are above board, however, like everything, the inability of the commission and other interested parties to crack down on the rogue elements makes it harder for the man on the street to trust that ££££ is going where it should.

Personally, charity for me begins at home and I would rather donate goods, time or services to local charities.

"They shouldn't be providing a service to the state. That's the problem.

If there's a role the state should be fulfilling, then it should fulfil it. There needs to be a clearer distinction between the job that the local/regional/national government does, and the job that the charity does, and taxpayer's money going to charities to provide services blurs that distinction. It encourages the charity's focus away from the people they're trying to help and on to how to obtain their next chunk of money from the taxpayer."

Words cannot express adequately what rot that is.

How do you think the state would go about providing the services they currently purchase from specialist charities??? They would have to buy in the expertise, from the existing charity! The cost would be astronomic, not to mention the drain on manpower for the charity, to take on headcount, superannuated staff, all to provide a service they can tender and contract for cheaply using existing third sector. And

Charities are heavily audited, it's my job!

As for "taking up time bidding for contracts" (my précis) that's simply not true, as the relationship between the charities and local govt is often such a close one that the tenders are written with the charities in mind. That's just good supplier relations and happens in a commercial setting too I might add.